Talk:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701)
Interiors? Where has all this information come from? It certain has not been mentioned in canon. -- Michael Warren 17:39, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Some has, I believe. Most other info is from "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise". Though it contains some stupid mistakes (like claiming the Enterprise was refitted in 2222 or something), it does contain quite an ammount of useful information. Plus quite an lot has been mentioned on the show, or has been seen on the show. Ottens 17:50, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :: But that book isn't canon, so as usefull as it is The info doesn't count. 17.55, 23 June 2004 The info from that book is not a valid resource for use in these articles, so it shouldn't be used. If the info has been mentioned on screen, then fine, but things like the A Deck, B Deck distinctions have not (and since Starfleet uses numerical deck notation, are incorrect anyway). -- Michael Warren 17:56, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :As you wish. I shall remove it. Ottens 17:57, 23 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::Not quite true. There are two instances where decks on the Enterprise were referred to using a alphabetical notation. First, in The Original Series episode "Court Martial," although it sounds like a very bad mistake on behalf of the writers, Spock determines Ben Finney's location as "B Deck, in or near engineering." Presumeably by "B Deck" he meant the engineering/stardrive section of the ship. However, in "Star Trek II," after Kirk and the landing party plus the Regula I Lab survivors have returned to the Enterprise from the Genesis cave in Regula, Kirk goes to board one of the turbolifts only to be told by Spock, "They're inoperative below C Deck." -- , 8 July 2005 Five year missions You know, it was never really stated that the Enterprise ever went on any five-year missions besides the TOS run under Kirk. We have no idea how long Pike and April commanded the ship, nor how long Admiral Kirk did after TMP. Is it really enough to assume that since the exploration initiative of the 2260s entailed a five-year mission, that means all the ship's journeys are five year missions? I think that it would fit better thematically if we just stated the GENERAL time period of each of those eras (April, Pike, post TMP Kirk, then Spock) rather than trying to assume each one was a standardized five-year mission (a concept never referenced again in any Trek) --Captain Mike K. Bartel 16:05, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) :I thought that it was said in "The Cage" that Enterprise was on a five-year mission. And if both Pike and Kirk took the ship on a five-year mission, we can safely assume that it was quite normal in that time that missions of exploration took five years. Ottens 21:55, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::And if you consider that even starships can't make anti-matter out of thin air, they'd eventually have to turn back to refuel. If they took enough antimatter with them, 5 years sounds about right. -- Redge 22:54, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) Ottens: There was no opening monologue in "The Cage" with the 'five-year mission' line. Unless someone said it in the episode dialogue, it just isn't true.. Redge: Well, yes, this makes sense, but in Star Trek VI we see that the Excelsior was only on a three year mission. Its obvious supplies and outfitting are not the only factor in determining mission length, and it might be unrealistic to assume that all of the Enterprise(s) careers have voyages of the exact same durations, due to the possibility of other circumstances. I'm not saying its impossible, I'm just saying that we might be speculating unnecessarily, when the tone of this work should probably dictate we relate the canon facts (the length of Pikes command, the amount of intervening years between episodes and films) without making baseless reasonings. --Captain Mike K. Bartel :I wasn't certain if it was in the opening lines. It was only a question. ;) :See this link http://www.ydg.com/trek5/trek_pitch.pdf. It is Gene Roddenberry's original plan for "Star Trek". I quote from page nine, paragraph IV of "Captain Pike's orders": :"Galaxy exploration and Class M investigation: 5 years." So known that Captain Pike's mission was to take 5 years, and Kirk's mission also, we can quite safely assume that it was quite common in that time for missions of exploration to last over a perdiod of 5 years.Ottens 23:12, 25 Jun 2004 (CEST) Excellent point, I'd be quite happy to take Roddenberry's draft as canon, seeing as it was the blueprint of the series and heavily based in it. From Pike's later appearance we know he was commanded the Enterprise for more than 11 years. Are we sure this was two five year missions? Maybe it was one five year mission and a series of shorter explorations, or perhaps there was a long refit or some other unexpected occurrence cut a mission short or restarted it. I just don't like assuming that nothing more expansive than what has been seen exists. Pike's command could very well have involved more fantastic circumstances which prevented it from being two five-year missions with intervening refit time. I don't think we should present data when the possibility some different occurence could prove Okuda's assumption false. --Captain Mike K. Bartel 00:26, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :The article says "CO for 11 years"... Ottens 10:15, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::A TNG Tec manual suggest that a galaxy Class ship has a device that can create Antimatter. Although it's never cannonlly brought up, Kirk did say there power source renews itself in "The Mark of Gideon". --TOSrules 08:26, Feb 9, 2005 (CET) :::I think it's ridicules to use original plans on Memory alpha beyond a side note. There are many original plans that never come to be (IE USS Yorktown), some that are refuted in canon. In this case the original idea of a 5 year mission for Pike was given to Kirk instead. Nice link BTW --TOSrules 08:48, Feb 9, 2005 (CET) Original Picture And Use Of CGI Enterprise Are there any pictures on MA with the original version of Enterprise, from TOS? I know there's one from , but is there one from one of the original episodes? zsingaya 19:46, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC) :With shots of the DS9 model and CGI renderings from ENT and the Remastered TOS being favorably used over screencaps of the original model, I seriously doubt it. : On that topic: :Is it absolutely necessary that we have to use the (poorly done) CGI model from ENT as the top profile image for the USS Enterprise? If so, could we at least use the (high-def) CBS Remastered model rendering of the NCC-1701? That CGI model does the Enterprise justice I feel, and it is virtually THE EXACT SAME SHOT! I'm practically begging you guys to consider my proposal. --AC84 05:36, 23 September 2006. ::If you'll look again, MOST of the TOS Enterprise shots in that section of the aritcle ARE caps from the original episodes.Capt Christopher Donovan 09:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC) :When used as prime examples, the DS9 model or ENT CGI model is often preferred. And that's fine, but we're never given a good shot from DS9's T&T and the model from ENT's TATV doesn't even look detailed. With the CBS Remastered CGI model, we are given some beautiful and utterly outstanding shots of the USS Enterprise. I think we should use that model for the top of the page. --AC84 09:25, 23 September 2006 Command crew subsection of "Kirk's five-year mission" Ilia and Saavak were a part of the command crew. HOWEVER they were NOT a part of the command crew until AFTER 2270, the date Kirk's five-year mission ended. To Boldly Go Section I question the need for this section. If kept it is woefully incomplete (what of V'ger? Contacting the First Federation? Finding Khan? Every other episode?) and should be revised for style and verbiage (e.g., "home galaxy"; "Beside the fact that Starfleet ships and their crews outrage standard", and similar such things). I recommend it just be removed from the article. Aholland 21:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC) :I've revised and expanded this article, and worked a couple of the points mentioned from that section into the history. Much of the five-year mission additions are lifted from the James T. Kirk article, part of an effort to trim that beast down. These additions mostly focus on feats of the ship itself, rather than otherwise character-driven events. :There were a lot of other errors, canon conflicts, and lack of citations in the article. (I'm to blame for a lot of that from a past edit) Hopefully it looks better now. The history of the name "Enterprise" has been moved to the end because, it seemed to me, more appropriate there. This is all pretty rough, and I'll come back to it with fresh eyes later. --Aurelius Kirk 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Forgive my saying so, but this article is turning into a collection of TV Guide-style synopses. Why are some, but not all, of the TOS shows summarized here? Surely the Enterprise was there for all of them? But more importantly: why are any of them here? Is it really important to an article on the Enterprise that Kirk made contact with the Gorn? This article should be corrected for conflicts and the like, but not to turn it into a series of synopses of events that happened to take place around, but only marginally involve, the Enterprise. I propose that the lengthy section on what Kirk did be removed (reference it to Kirk if necessary) and the broad history and specific descriptions of the ship instead be the focus of this article. Aholland 04:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :Forgiven :) I'm sympathetic to your point (as I think I understand it). You're right about the Gorn citation, it needs to be reworked to emphasise the engagement over first contact, or be removed. This portion is definitely flawed, but not different than the encapsulated, episodic ship's histories of other major starship articles on MA. I don't want to see every episode cited -- but battles, slingshots through time, extra-galactic probes, Tholian web, M5... that's significant history, relevant to the ship and should be included. Otherwise, it's a ship name, a few dates and a crew list with a "see also" link to . I'd love to digest the ship's history into a 3-4 paragraph narrative that reads well, but that's beyond my ability while keeping inline with MA standards and citation guidelines -- at least at the moment. I'll keep on this tonight and see if I can't improve it. --Aurelius Kirk 05:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a plan! (And I think that the Gorn cite will probably end up dropping out since - from a ship's standpoint - it wasn't as significant as, say, extra-galactic travel.) Thanks. Aholland 12:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :It looks like I need to do some homework before I can write an accurate, consise prose history. The fruits of this might be useful elsewhere in MA as well. I've begun compiling a "scorecard" of the TOS/TAS events, compliling a list of first contacts, battles, speed records, deaths, etc. The beginnings of the project, including samples of a "Ships's Log" sidebar addition for episode articles, are on my user page. If someone can point out a similar resource elsewhere on the web to help me, or if you have comments on my "homework", let me know here. --Aurelius Kirk 18:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC) :It took longer than I hoped, but I've posted a new History of the five-year mission, more from the ship's POV. The stats (planets, first contacts, crew deaths) are based on the 5-yr mission scorecard I've compilied on my user page. So far, it's only based on TOS, as I haven't digested much of TAS, and the range of dates 2265 to 2269 given to those stats in this article try to reflect that omission. I've yet to work in the "Enterprise" speed records. Sorry, but I kept the Gorn and significant first contacts, as I think the crew's efforts are more significant than only technical data, and why the ship is remembered a century later. --Aurelius Kirk 04:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 43 officers?(!) how do we know the ship had 43 officers and 387 crew? should this be removed? -- Captain M.K.B. 18:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC) Sidebar info from article I removed this info when changing to the new sidebar format: Most of the information belongs on anyway (and is currently present there), the rest is either available in the article text already, or probably speculation (see section above this). -- Cid Highwind 12:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC) PNA Explanation Article lacks information from Star Trek: The Animated Series. --Defiant 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC) :Especially now that the DVDs have been released, there is no reason not to have this content. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 2272 was not a very good year? Some here doesn't like the precise date of 2272 as the date the V'ger Crises happened, I don't see why not but if so then the page for the year 2272 should be deleted since it has on it the incident as to when V'ger happened, and they maybe many other instances of historical references and people using 2272 as a reference. Hunter2005-A 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC) :Let's just do the math. When did Kirk first take command? Then add five years. Then add eighteen months, and you've got the year the V-Ger crisis happened. Damage Inconsistencies I was watching Wrath of Khan recently, and I caught something that made me think of this commentary on inconsistencies in battle damage between Wrath of Khan and Search for Spock" other areas of the ship that hadn't been damaged by Khan's attack had battle damage, including the starboard secondary hull, both nacelles, and the top of the saucer. The author of this comment is correct in that none of the damage mentioned here is seen on the model in any exterior shots. However, with the exception of the damage to the nacelles, the damage to the starboard secondary hull and the dorsal area of the saucer appears to have been intended but not actually implemented on the model. I can't find the screen capture I want, but in the scene directly following Khan's first attack on the Enterprise, Spock points to damage indicators on a schematic of the ship. Indicators are clearly seen in two places on the saucer that correspond to where damage is seen in Search for Spock, the port side rear quarter. Similarly, Spock points to damage indicators on a dorsal-view schematic of the secondary hull which clearly indicates damage on the port and starboard sides. It's quite possible that whomever was in ruling on consistency wanted to make the damage on the model consistent with the attacks that were actually filmed, but at the time the scene was shot with Spock and Kirk looking at damage indicators, there may have been the intention to film a more extensive sequence of the Reliant firing on the Enterprise. -Raiyven :In the first battle between the ships, there is a scene where a display indicates where the damage in the engineering section is and it occurs on both sides of the hull. The starboard side hull damage was supposed to be from Khan's strafing run of the engineering section (apparently the phasers were supposed to have cut through everything in between and exit the ship). It is possible that any such damage that occured in areas which were not apparently hit might have been caused by 'flashback', or from 'splash damage'EvanC 14:47, June 9, 2011 (UTC) Enterprise from teaser Should someone (me?) add the shot of the Enterprise under construction from the teaser? --WTRiker 02:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC) :Nope. First of all, it won't be canon until it appears in the film. Secondly, until the film's released, the images or information can't be used in articles other than the film's article based on our spoiler policy. :) -- Sulfur 02:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC) TOS Enterprise's encounters with UFP ships Does anyone know how many Federation starships were seen during TOS, and what they were called? --Defiant 04:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC) : Well, here's what I know: :* - ... et al :* An unnamed J class starship - :* - :* - :* - :* - :* - :* Woden - :* - :* - :* ''Aurora'' - : Also: :* Antares - (not seen but rendezvoused with ship in ep) :* Astral Queen - (almost seen, but Kirk asked it to stay away) :* - ("sensed" but not seen) : This is just a simple search through eps, and I probably forgot something. But it's a start.--Tim Thomason 04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC) :: There are a fair number of ships in : ::* (NCC-1371), mentioned in dialogue. :: The NCC list: ::* NCC-1709 (linked to Lexington in TOS-R) ::* NCC-1831 ::* NCC-1703 (linked to Hood in TOS-R) ::* NCC-1672 (linked to Exeter in TOS-R) ::* NCC-1697 ::* NCC-1701 (USS Enterprise) ::* NCC-1718 ::* NCC-1685 ::* NCC-1700 ::Technically, these remain nameless, but Greg Jein linked them to Constitution class vessels, and this was copied by Okuda, and eventually TOS-Remastered. ::The following ships were not all seen in TOS, but were suggested during production in memos. In August 1967, D.C. Fontana suggested listing a few names in the "Star Trek Guide" for future use. Bob Justman and Gene Roddenberry decided on the following names for Starfleet starships (around this time, it was a bit vague if 'starship' meant 'ships looking exactly like the Enterprise, or just 'ships in the Star Fleet service'): ::* Enterprise ::* Exeter ::* Excalibur ::* (mentioned in ) ::* Potemkin ::* Republic ::* Hood ::* Constitution ::* Kongo ::* Constellation ::* (mentioned in ) ::* Valiant (mentioned as in and as in , both destroyed) ::* Intrepid ::Striked-through ships were mentioned by Tim already. This means that Constitution and Kongo weren't seen in TOS, but they were 'approved' starship names during production of TOS. Constitution is usually linked no NCC-1700, though technically there is no direct evidence of this. Kongo appeared in as one of the Operation: Retrieve vessels. ::-- Harry ''talk'' 10:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC) ::: Add the Yorkshire and from remastered. Also, the Enterprise never encountered the Valiants, so those don't count anymore than the Archon or Horizon. The Denevan starship is a Federation design too. --Alan del Beccio 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ::: Also, there are the: :::* Federation scoutship :::* 2 Robot grain ships :::* Winston's trading vessel :::* Bonaventure :::* (unseen) :::* ::: At least as far as TAS ships go. --Alan del Beccio 02:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) This may be rather obscure, but... How do they dispose of waste? Throw it out an airlock? This is for a school project, it's due next Wednesday! Help! Free assimilation! Today only! 16:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC) :I would look at the waste extraction article. It doesn't reference USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) directly, but it might help. ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC) ::Radioactive waste produced by the impulse engine is at least vented into space according to . Other than that I would assume the bio-matter resequencer was still used. --Pseudohuman 02:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I know exactly how they dispose of waste: They flush it down the crapper! 04:51, July 15, 2011 (UTC) Star Trek XI Enterprise image merger One thing that's crossed my mind is how exactly will images for the new Enterprise for JJ Abram's film be merged in with shots of the "original" Enterprise from TOS/TOS-R as the film supposedly covers all the way from the early 22nd century up through launch and, as seen in the teaser, has a more TMP look about it (assuming they keep the exact same design as in the teaser) so the dillema is how will the article be adjusted to match the "new" design of the Enterprise with the "old"? Even though the movie is still a year away, it is something to figure out. --WTRiker 17:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC) :Good question. I would say just include images of both since both designs will be considered canon. It's not like the Enterprise in the movie is going to be drastically different, anyway. For the record, none of the new movie will be set in the 22nd century (that I know of, anyway). The earliest time period in the movie I know of is the 2230s. --From Andoria with Love 21:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I assume you mean 23rd, not 22nd? -WTRiker 20:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :::2230s is the 23rd century, he seems to have meant what he said. --OuroborosCobra talk 21:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC) :What Cobra said. :) Most of the movie will be set in the 23rd century; none of it (that I know of) will be set in the 22nd century. You said the film supposedly covered the early 22nd century; that's not true. It's mainly the 23rd century and a bit in the 24th century. --From Andoria with Love 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) I think what happened there is I misread it. My bad.--WTRiker 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC) USS Enterprise NCC-1701 as an Earth Vessel? In the episode , The commander of the Romulan Bird-of-Prey (23rd century) refers to the Enterprise as an Earth vessel; I've been told that after formation of the Federation, all starships within the new Starfleet didn't belong to the Humans. Aren't the starships of the Federation Starfleet (the ones that represent Earth design, ex: circular hulls, warp nacell placement,etc..) the contributions of the humans as a member species? It would only make sense. ( ) 14:02, 17 May 2008 : The simplest answer is that it was early in TOS, and they used Earth/Federation rather loosely, almost interchangeably. --Alan 18:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC) I see; of course more insight would be welcome to help clarify the human influence on starfleet vessels if anyone would like to contribute.( ) 14:17, 17 May 2008 : Well, there is the obvious design lineage from ENT. Other than that, specific aspects of the ship designs adapted from other Federation member species were never addressed, specifically. One could speculate that various technologies were adopted from the Andorians and Vulcans (shields, tractor beams, advanced engines), but, as I noted above, the designs all seem to follow the trend shown in ENT, and to a point, back to the Phoenix, in the case of the nacelles. --Alan 18:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC) ::"I've been told"... really? OK, Not having any idea where this came from, may I propose that whoever told you this may have meant NOT that "['no'] starships within the new Starfleet... belonged to the Humans" but instead that "['some'] starships within the new Starfleet didn't belong to the Humans." 00:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC) :::Well the Enterprise was built on Earth, so the term Earth ship or Earth vessel may just be a more accurate origin designation and Earth had been at that point the capital world of the Federation for a century, and not populated by only humans but hundreds of different humanoid species (...well at least a century after that, but I don't see why not before that too), so the Earth/Federation is quite interchangable anyways, I would think. I don't see why we would have to assume humans to be involved in anything "from Earth" when that event is after the formation of the Federation. --Pseudohuman 01:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC) :The simplest answer is that it was early in TOS, and they writers used Earth/Federation rather loosely, almost interchangeably. --Alan 02:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC) Well, maybe this will be revealed in the upcoming movie.( ) 16:12, 20 May 2008 ::::In universe, the simple explanation might be, that at least during that time. The Romulan's described vessels within Starfleet/Federation, particularly ships with a mostly, if not all Human crew as an Earth vessel due to it's point of origin, or the government that 'owns' it (as the UFP HQ is Earth, right?) Another note to remember, is Captain Forrest described the ''Defiant'' as an Earth ship. Maybe it's the design, who knows. --Terran Officer 03:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC) ::::: Could be that Earth Starfleet wasn't transfered to Federation jurisdiction until the early- or mid-23rd century. Dialogue early in TOS seems to reflect an Earth-centric Starfleet as late as 2265. In the mid-23rd century, Sarek definatly discouraged his son from joining an Starfleet (because it was an Earth organization?). Although it's never stated, I'd say Starfleet's full intigration happened during the TMP period (and we can blame the "penguin grays" on the Andorians . . .). Where was the NCC-1701 built? In this article it says, the NCC-1701 was built *in* San Francisco, but on San Francisco Fleet Yards it says it was build in orbit. Which one is it? --Cruncher :I think According to The Making of Star Trek, the Enterprise was built on Earth but assembled in space. covers your question. You can find it located just below the line you mention. — Morder 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :: states the following: "I (Robert April) was there in the San Francisco Navy Yards when her unit components were built." Take what you want from the *in*... --Alan 00:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC) :::The following reply to Cruncher contains a possible spoiler for the upcoming movie. Cruncher, you asked: "In this article it says, the NCC-1701 was built *in* San Francisco, but on San Francisco Fleet Yards it says it was build in orbit. Which one is it?" My answer: come May 2009, neither will be correct. --From College with Love :: Why don't we just stick to established canon, instead to succumbing to temptation to cheat? --Alan 00:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC) ::: Come May 2009 (now history), IN San Fransisco or in orbit is STILL true, as the new movie chronicles a completely different (alternate) Enterprise constructed in a different location, a decade later, under different circumstances, in an alternate reality. ::::The parts were manufactured in San Francisco, but was assembled and finished the Mars Utopian Fleet yards. How many decks were on the original Enterprise? I was reading one of the old non-canon novels and came across a reference to the Enterprise having 11 decks. I was just curious and was trying to confirm this, but tracking this information down on the Internet is proving to be a bugger. Anybody know? (BTW - Should "technical" information like that be included in this Article? If not, is there a Memory Alpha page that presents ship schematics, etc. Just curious) Thanks! --MShivers 20:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC) : See: Constitution class decks, but also in , O'Brien complained the following, with regards to searching the decks of the Enterprise, "why bother searching thirty decks, when you can just plunk yourself down at a bar and wait for Darvin to come to you." That reference seems to be missing from both the aforementioned link and the page, but would seem to be, at least, the combined deck count. "Deck 21" was also thrown about in that episode too as the highest numbered deck, mentioned. --Alan 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC) :: The 21 deck number is probably correct, taking into account window spacing, etc., on the models. O'Brien's "thirty decks" comment is factual if you take into account that decks 7 through 11 (in the lower saucer) are duplicated by sepperate decks 7 through 11 in the connecting dorsal. ::: Deck 22 is mentioned in In a Mirror, Darkly, Part II, and as I recall there was even a light blinking at the location in the MSD and it wasn't the lowest deck but around the middle of the engineering hull. --Pseudohuman 02:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC) ::Of course, one would have to sensibly take O'Brien's comment as a possible generalization also... Conversationally, people do tend to round numbers to make points, either simply for ease of speaking or as hyperbole to make their point -- as in, if O'Brien wanted to make the task sound more difficult, he might round the correct number "26" or "28" and say "we've got to search thirty decks" to make the task sound more daunting, if he felt it would make his point. -- Captain MKB 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC) In the movies, Spock references C-deck. I think the decks were lettered. 16:31, October 4, 2009 (UTC) :Oh man, don't try to bring your anonymous voicings on crazy lettered decks onto here. There could be both lettered and numbered decks but primarily, the decks were numbered. C-deck could also be a designation of a certain deck (as The Bridge would be Deck 1, correct?).--Italianajt 21:17, February 12, 2010 (UTC) ::::Currently watching Star Trek 5, the bit where spock, kirk and bones use rocket boots to go up turbolift 3 (under repair) and they go past 70 decks! :::::That was the , not this one.--31dot 21:21, February 22, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Doesn't O'Brien 30 deck comment concern the space station?-- 23:13, July 18, 2012 (UTC) Jim "Jim the Enterprise is 20 years old..." can any one explain that? I'm not an expert but I think 2245-2285 is 40 years. Vince 17:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC) :From the Article: Upon her return to Earth, Starfleet Commander in Chief Admiral Harry Morrow announced that the starship, then forty years old (although Morrow mistakenly claimed it was twenty years old; he might have been referring to the length of time that passed since her massive refit) — Morder 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC) ::That is to say, it's right there in the article. --TribbleFurSuit 03:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Assignment patch I would like to attribute the Enterprise's assignment patch to the USS Kelvin. We know that at the time each ship had a distinct assignment patch. However, with the new movie, the Kelvin bore the delta insignia even before Nero's temporal incursion. :Agreed, but I altered the wording to say that the patch design used by the Enterprise was previously used by the crew of the Kelvin, not that it was based on it. It is not clear whether that same patch was used by another ship before the Kelvin, or after the Kelvin and before the Enterprise. --From Andoria with Love 09:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :: I disagree. Nero's incursion altered past events as well - may or may not have happened, thing with Edith Keeler may have gone differently, could not have happened, etc. From a "real world" POV, the Kelvin used the Enterprise Delta because that's what is now considered "Star Trek." Putting movie events into the old series can not work. The uniforms are different, the technology is different, everything is different. Saying that the delta patch originated on the Kelvin in the primary reality is speculation, and conflicts with what we know of primary reality policy: all ships have unique patches. I think everything in the new movie, including what we see of the Kelvin, should be limited to the "Alternate Reality" entries. Stekev 02:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC) :::Actually, no...see the Kelvin and other such events that take place before the incursion are part of the old timeline and thus everything still happened exactly as it happened. This is a parallel universe that is created as a result of this incursion. When the "old timeline" kirk goes back in time to Assignment Earth it is still part of the same timeline and thus still happens. (both parallel universes share the same universe until the destruction of the Kelvin) This isn't the same Grandfather Paradox type time travel otherwise I would agree with you. — Morder 02:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC) ::My apologies for raising this issue once again after such a long time, but I believe that the inclusion of a reference to the delta insignia being worn by the crew of the USS Kelvin is a case of revisionist history, and that it should only be present in articles that pertain to the alternate reality that's depicted in J.J. Abrams' film series. Would anyone else care to provide their thoughts on this? -- Commander Scott 03:26, 23 July 2010 (BST) :::The existence of the Kelvin took place before Nero's incursion, and is therefore part of the prime timeline. To reject it just because it was released in 2009, and not in the 1960s, that would be like rejecting anything in Enterprise that effects later series, or rejecting and the time travel plot there, because it wasn't made in the 1960s. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:56, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::I agree with Ouroboros. It's possible to have an individual interpretation of what "counts" in Star Trek continuity, but MA's includes all Star Trek films and TV episodes. As such, the alternate reality comes into being when Nero's ship appears in 2233; anything from that exists prior to that incursion (such as the Kelvin) has to be treated as part of the original timeline. We can't treat everything from as an alternate reality unless we change the canon policy. —Josiah Rowe 03:09, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Thanks for your input gents. I must admit that I feel uncomfortable with the pre-Nero events being considered a part of the Prime Universe, given that it's likely that James T. Kirk would have been born aboard the USS Kelvin instead of in Iowa, even if Nero's incursion hadn't occurred, but since my discomfort isn't something that I would ever use to try and influence policy, things like this, that don't quite fit into what was previously established, will likely have to remain curious oddities like Star Trek Voyager stating that ships can't manoeuvre at warp. Thanks again. -- Commander Scott 05:21, 23 July 2010 (BST) :::If it helps, I believe it might be in the novel that the Kelvin was on its way to Earth when it was side tracked to investigate the black whole that Nero and the Narada emerged from, and that the ensuing battle caused stress on Kirk's mother, triggering her labor earlier than it would have otherwise come. Had Nero not intervened in the timeline, it's possible the Kelvin would have made it to Earth, and his mother to Iowa. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:28, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Hmmm, if that is indeed the case, then it does indeed do a great deal to assuage my discomfort. Of course, whilst the novels can't be considered canon, they do, in many cases, provide valuable insight into elements such as this, so I'd just like to thank you for sharing that with me, since I haven't had the opportunity to read it. :) -- Commander Scott 05:58, 23 July 2010 (BST) :fyi, I'm not sure if it was actually in the novel, but the writers did intend for the Kelvin to be on its way to Earth when its sensors picked up the black hole. Had it not been for the black hole popping into existence, the Kelvin would have made it to Earth and Jim Kirk would have been born a short time later. (He still was born on Earth, of course, just not in the splinter timeline that was created as a result of the black hole.) The writers stated in interviews that that is what happened, that info just never made it into the film (nor was it really needed). --From Andoria with Love 08:13, July 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::The other piece of information that the writers suggested was that the stress of the battle with Nero caused Winona Kirk to go into premature labor. In the original timeline, they suggested, little Jim would have been born slightly later (on Earth). That's why the birth dates on the James T. Kirk and James T. Kirk (alternate reality) pages don't match. —Josiah Rowe 21:17, July 23, 2010 (UTC) :Although it seems possible that all of the events of the 2009 film were, prior to the coming of the other ship from the future, exactly matching those of the normal Star Trek Universe, whether they were or were not is uncertain. Exactly what was going on at that time does not seem to be, from the perspective of the normal Universe established. Therefore, although it seems entirely possible that Captain Kirk was going to be born in Iowa as he should and would have, that sequence being interrupted by the coming of Nero, stating that that is the case is speculation. Therefore, the statement that the symbol used on the Enterprise originated there on the Kelvin is also speculation, and should be, if included in the article listed as merely a possibility and not as the established truth. 00:44, May 20, 2013 (UTC) :::::These claims of the new timeline having not only a different future but also a different past from the old one seem to be wishful thinking more than anything. There has been an explicit discussion of this in the last movie - Nero and Spock went to their past, and their appearance made the timeline take a different "route" from that point on. If the old and new one were different universes altogether, one couldn't have been reached from the other by "just" time travel. -- Cid Highwind (talk) 16:20, May 20, 2013 (UTC) Lineage Should there be a note separating the Enterprise's real-world lineage and its fictional one?Tophvision 23:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC) :No. We don't compare to the real world. — Morder 23:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC) ::I removed the entire section for now: ::"Enterprise" (an English word for a venture of scope, risk and promise) has a long Earth lineage, from the age of sail through the warp 5 engine. The was an early example of ships named ''Enterprise, and the name was used in the British and American navies through the 20th century. In 1986, the second American aircraft carrier to be named Enterprise, the , was intruded upon by officers who had been assigned to the Constitution-class Enterprise; they were searching for high-energy protons to re-energize the dilithium crystals of the , a Klingon Bird-of-Prey they had seized. ( ) A prototype for NASA's space shuttle fleet was named [[Enterprise (OV-101)|Space Shuttle Enterprise]], and the first United Earth Starfleet vessel commissioned launched in 2151, under the command of Captain Jonathan Archer, initiating the era of Humanity's deep space exploration. ( )'' ::I'm not really sure why we need to summarize an entirely different article here, instead of just placing a link to it, as it is now with this removed. Also, this section has had POV or citation problems as long as I remember, so I consider that another reason to just leave the Lineage section as a link to the history article. - 02:02, January 14, 2011 (UTC) 2245 Source? After months of editing without logging in, I finally have to do something I needed to attach my signature to. Bugger. Anyhow! Enough grousing! The article gives the NCC-1701 launch date as 2245, using the sources and . Now, I checked the transcripts for both episodes and found no evidence of a 2245 launch date. In fact, the only source that supports a 2245 launch date appears to be the unseen screen from the Defiant computer logs in "In A Mirror Darkly," which the article already acknowledges is non-canon. Did I miss something in the source material, or should I remove this apparently erroneous information? --BCSWowbagger 22:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :Short of you watching the episodes in question, no, you shouldn't remove it. Transcripts (especially if they come from where I think they come from) are horribly inaccurate. However, I don't think it was mentioned in the episodes either but I'll watch them sometime soon to confirm. — Morder 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::Also, the computer logs seen in "In a Mirror, Darkly" are indeed canon. Not sure where you saw that it said it was not canon. --From Andoria with Love 22:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::Strike that, I see you mean the part of the logs that didn't appear on-screen. My bad. --From Andoria with Love 22:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ::You're correct, there are no such references in the episodes, and the citations you pointed out are citing the involvement of Larry Marvick in its design not the date of its launch. The 2245 date comes primarily from reference material such as The Making of Star Trek, the Star Trek Encyclopedia, etc. It comes from Gene Roddenberry's notion that the Enterprise would have about 20 years old at the start of the five-year-mission (2265). As for its placement in canon, I'm not sure it has any; there might be a reference in which states when Robert April commanded the ship, but I'm not sure. --From Andoria with Love 22:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC) :::There is no canon source that says the Enterprise was launched in 2245, or any other date. The only thing we know, for sure, is that it was launched some time prior to 2250 (when April became an ambassador). It matches up nicely (and coincidentally) if you assume April had a five-year mission, but it's really, really, murky.--Tim Thomason 05:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC) I'm glad we had this little chat, then. (Which, admittedly, I forgot about until just now.) I've made the appropriate changes, subject as ever to your consensus approval. Morder, I've never had problems with chakoteya.net. Are you thinking of another site, or am I just being thick? --BCSWowbagger 22:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC) :There are many issues with chakoteya.net - Many quotes added to this site were taken from that site and are horribly wrong so I don't trust that site one bit. It's helpful, but not accurate. — Morder (talk) 22:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC) ::I'll be a bit more careful about chakoteya 'scrips in the future. Thanks for the FYI. -- 20:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Casualties There seems to be a question of the count on the number of casualties, as seen on this page: Talk:Starfleet casualties. - Archduk3:talk 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC) :I came up with that number a few years ago, based on my analysis of the TOS's three seasons. I can't speak for deaths depicted during the animated series, though I don't believe there are any. My tally is noted here. hmmm - after giving it a quick look, I seem to have missed noting Sam's death. - Aurelius Kirk 23:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Larry Marvick Yes, it does state in "Is There in Truth No Beauty" that he was an original designer of the Enterprise, but given that the Enterprise is forty years old when it's destroyed, is he old enough to have designed it? Quasars Any particular reason why they needed to find them? -- 18:51, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :I presume that you are referring to "Galileo Seven," in which Kirk states that they have standing orders to investigate all quasars and quasar-like phenomenon. This is only because Starfleet has a high interest in studying them. Starfleet is an exploratory, scientific agency, after all. Blair2009 18:45, February 12, 2010 (UTC) Question Was the Enterprise the same vessel even after the refit? Some people say it was completely new. I doubt that. I just need confirmation. --Catherine 17:46, June 5, 2010 (UTC) :You might want to read this, as this is the best answer to this question that I know of. - 19:42, June 5, 2010 (UTC) ::I have read it. What are any of your opinions? --Calthrina950 17:06, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::I think it's the same, but this isn't really the proper forum for discussing our opinions- are for discussing changes to the article. The Reference Desk is the best place to ask specific questions.--31dot 17:15, August 14, 2010 (UTC) ::::You might also want to check this out. -Angry Future Romulan 19:57, August 14, 2010 (UTC) :::::Take a look at "Mr. Scott's Guide To the Enterprise". This confirms that the saucer, primary pylon and secondary hull are all original sections structurally. The difference is that the innards were all removed and replaced with newer systems. You can find a copy here at this address. Mr. Scott's Guide To the Enterprise Quote "A starship also runs on loyalty... to one man... and nothing can replace it... or him." :- Spock, 2268 More about the captain, in this case Kirk, than the ship itself. - 21:13, March 5, 2012 (UTC) My edits and additions I found copies of image of a constitution class "USS Constitution"" and renamed it to be used by English speakers. One was a constitution class pre-refit while the other was a drawing of a post-refit Enterprise. Why were these images removed from the page where I had added the two starboard images of these ships. They have already been added along with the rules and have a license added to them. Another question that I have is why administrators here and at Wikipedia keep deleting my work that I create. Is there some sort of discrimination against English speaking people going on here and there, or is it just me? No, I am not accusing anyone of this and am just asking a question as anything that I work on at a wiki site other than my own gets deleted. What was will be. What will be won't. 10:09, March 31, 2012 (UTC) :conflict - Where to start? First, read about signing (don't use multiple lines). Second, read MA:CANON about what we allow, see here for the deletion rational for these. Third, the copyright you added is incorrect, as you are not Cid Highwind, therefor the images have another source. Forth, you only added that copyright notice to one image at the time of this writing, meaning the other is still without (though further instruction the last two can be requested and would have been offered if not for the other issues). Fifth, this page is about the Enterprise, not the Constitution-class, where these should have been located if we allowed them. Sixth, I'm not going to speak for folks over at Wikipedia, but your edits here were reverted because you don't know enough about our policies and guidelines, which by the way are not the same as the German version of MA, so it's you, not us. - 10:16, March 31, 2012 (UTC) Main Picture Isn't the top picture supposed to be the most recent footage, and second one representing how the object looked during the majority of it's time? Meaning the post-''motion picture'' Enterprise should be at the top? Am I right?Thomsons Gazelle (talk) 12:25, December 15, 2012 (UTC) :There's no hard and fast rule in that area; while we tend to have the most recent picture at the top, it's not always the case. In this case, I would suggest leaving it the way it is, as the picture of the post-refit Enterprise could result in confusion with the . 31dot (talk) 12:29, December 15, 2012 (UTC)